I'm sure there's a thoughtful post that could be written logically connecting these points and shedding light on a "big picture" issue or two that needs to be tackled. However, I'm heading to class (to talk about the Strong Program in the sociology of science and return midterms), so I can't crank out that post just yet. (And, rather than helping me out by writing the post, the elves just take my notes and make shoes. Selfish elves!)
- Mike Dunford notes that, at least in the U.S., most of us are in the situation of spending our pre-college years learning science from people with extensive training in education (but not so much in science), and then reaching college (and perhaps grad school) where we learn science from people who have extensive training in science (but not so much in education). As Mike points out,
this situation is absolutely insane. It's bloody stupid. Look, an education degree is fantastic. If I've learned one thing from TAing the last two semesters, it's that teaching is a hell of a lot more difficult than it looks. Being able to effectively teach a subject requires much more than knowledge of the subject. To teach well, you have to be able to structure the course appropriately, present the material at a reasonable rate, present the material in a way that can engage at least a few of the students, write exams that actually test what you teach, explain why an answer is wrong instead of just saying that it is - and that's just a partial list. But you do need to understand the material.
Also, it might explain the big shock to the system some college students -- who thought, all through high school, that they liked science and were good at it -- sustain when they enter the science lecture hall for the incomprehensibility derby.
- While we're noticing that maybe scientific knowledge, research chops, and pedagogical skills are all part of the package for a successful science educator, the U.S. Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education is now laying blame for the high cost of a college education on, among other things, the fact that faculty get released from some of their teaching load in order to conduct research.
[Robert C.] Dickeson [who authored the commission's new issue paper] decries as "abuse" policies that give professors relief from teaching to do research or do other institutional duties, which the paper says have reduced teaching loads to "12, or nine, or six, or, in some cases, three or even zero credit-hour responsibilities."
To put these numbers in context for you: 12 credit hours usually equals 4 regular courses in a semester. Not just the class time, mind you, but the prep time, the office hours, and the grading. That's a serious load -- one that makes research well-nigh impossible unless you can do it in your sleep, or your elves are more helpful than mine. Nonetheless, research is generally a requirement for continued employment, and in the sciences an important part of what students at the college level ought to be getting is the opportunity to participate in original research. But, I guess, if it costs too much, we should ditch research and decide that doing science is utterly unimportant to the competencies and experiences one might want to draw on to teach science.
- Back to the high school level, research coming out of the James Irvine Foundation suggests that science students may be tuning out not just because of the teaching, but because they just don't see how any of the stuff they're learning in the classroom will be relevant on the job. This was true even for students who were planning to enter science-y jobs (in health care and high tech, for example), right out of high school. So, one more thing the successful science teacher has to hit before the bell rings.
Lots to work out, and the stakes are too high to give up.
But right now, I must dash!
I tried to move from Vanderbilt to a small liberal-arts college this year (but didn't succeed in the job search), because I'm enough interested in teaching that I want to do more of it -- but I don't want to give up the research. I just want the balance to shift.
I think that large research Universities are probably making a mistake by assuming that everybody is the "renaissance man" (or woman) who can teach and research both effectivley. One of these years, they're going to figure out that they can build a stronger department by having "researchers" who teach less, and "teachers" who teach more, even though both have equal status and both do both teaching and research. Right now, you have to make the people who aren't interested in teaching and who aren't good at teaching do it, because it's part of the job... and those of us who might want to teach more, can't ask to do that, because (a) it's seen as wasting your time, and doing more than you're supposed to, and (b) it will set a precendent with the administraiton that makes everybody teach more, and thereby get less research done.
This change would require a cultural change; I guarantee you that at a place like Vanderbilt, the "teaching" professors would generally be viewed as lesser than the "research" professors. (As, indeed, many at research institutions incorrectly view liberal arts colleges as "lesser" places to be a professor.) I don't know if that cultural change is even possible in Physics or other science fields; as you note in other blog entries, teaching doesn't get respect. It's always "teaching load and research opportunities," never "teaching opportunities."
The truth is, though, that the vast oversupply of Physics PhD's out there means that Universities probably can demand "renaissance professors" who are great at both. Not that they do, since very few really evaluate teaching for real, but they probably could.
-Rob
I may want to quote this in my annual report...
Regarding #2, there's something else to consider. Many universities with active research programs draw 5-25% of their operating budgets from grants and grant overhead--the results of all of that research. Without this federal subsidy (which is really what this is), tuitions would have to rise by a comparable amount.
There is something of a common point there, though, in points one and two. Sometimes you will have a person who is both a successful, driven researcher and a talented, interested educator. Too often, you will not.
You of course have the stereotype of the gifted reasearcher with zero ability to teach, painfully eking out his required classes to suffering students, with embarrassment all around and no learning taking place. It's a stereotype, but milder versions abound, with people with little interest and ability to teach being forced to do so to keep their research job.
But on the other end, you have people who really found their calling in teaching, and who, while competent enough to get that thesis done, aren't really interested or able to compete in the very competitive world of academic research. They end up producing second- or third-rate papers for obscure journals just to be able to do what they know and love - or end up at community colleges (to the delight of their students who end up getting far better teaching than many of their peers at more prestigious venues).
And most (all) undergraduate courses honestly don't benefit from any "research connection" via their teacher they could not get from a teacher that sits in on department seminars and workshops anyway. The most likely "connection" is probably one hour of the teacher dron ing on about his pet project, at a level far beyond its bored audience, and with little connection to the actual subject the class is supposed to be teaching.
When it comes to doing projects, the connection is important - and then you can engage the researchers at the department as tutors/mentors for the work.
To put these numbers in context for you: 12 credit hours usually equals 4 regular courses in a semester. Not just the class time, mind you, but the prep time, the office hours, and the grading. That's a serious load -- one that makes research well-nigh impossible unless you can do it in your sleep, or your elves are more helpful than mine.
I think that the reduction they're talking about is not a reduction from something insane to 12 hours per semester, but 12 hours per year, or an average of six hours per semester.
The credit hour scoring is also somewhat variable-- we get four hours for a lecture class, and two hours for a lab, teaching in ten-week trimesters. Our annual teaching requirement is 24 hours, and I've done 12 in a term, twice, and it's pretty rough. I'm doing 10 this term, and that's plenty.
But 6 in a term is actually pretty reasonable.